Get Conversions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the annotations themselves provide sufficient safety and behavioral context. The description adds the ability to break down by page, which is also documented in the input schema, so it adds minimal extra value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds an optional feature. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description effectively covers the core functionality. It does not explain the output format, but that is handled by the output schema. The description could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'conversion rates and counts', but overall it is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions for all five parameters. The description repeats the concept of breaking down by page but does not add new meaning or context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'goal conversion rates and counts', which is specific to conversions. It also mentions the optional breakdown by page, adding further specificity. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on goals and conversions implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_periods, get_breakdown, and get_timeseries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention compare_periods, get_breakdown, or get_timeseries, nor does it specify conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.